- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30326-DB WA No. 926 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 926 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI K R SHIVARUDRARADYA, S/O LATE K.R. RACHUTTIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, KALAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-562 122. …APPELLANT (BY SRI K VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU-562 110. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, PIN-561 203. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036. 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR, NANDAGUDI CIRCLE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-562 122. Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30326-DB WA No. 926 of 2025 5. SRI SHIVAPRASAD, S/O LATE B.K. SHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT KALAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-562122 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/04/2025, PASSED IN WP NO.2186/205 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP NO.2186/2025 OR PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/s. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2186/2025 [KLR- RES] captioned Sri K.R. Shivarudraradya Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others. 2. The appellant had filed the aforementioned writ petition impugning an order dated 31.12.2024 passed by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30326-DB WA No. 926 of 2025 the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.1 in Revision Petition No.27/2024, whereby the Revision Petition preferred by respondent no. 5 was allowed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition, while observing that entries made in the record in respect of the subject land would be subject to the result of the suit instituted by the appellant (O.S. 325/2021) claiming the subject land to be joint family property. 3. The controversy relates to the entries made in the land record in respect of land measuring 3 acres, 27 guntas, comprised in Sy. No. 35 in Kalappanahalli village, Nandaguudi Hobli, Hoakote Taluk [the subject land] 4. The subject land was sold to one B.K. Shivaiah (father of respondent no. 5) in terms of a sale deed dated 25.07.1970. After the demise of B.K. Shivaiah, respondent no.5 made an application to Respondent no.3 (the Tahsildar) for mutating the subject land in his name as the legal heir of the deceased B.K Shivaiah. The land records reflected the name of Chikanna s/o Kempa. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30326-DB WA No. 926 of 2025 5. The Tahsildar had issued an endorsement dated 05.12.2020 declining to enter the name of respondent no. 5 on the basis of the old sale deed. 6. The said endorsement dated 05.12.2020 was impugned by respondent No.5 before the Assistant Commissioner. The said Revision Petition was allowed by an order dated 25.07.2022. The Tahsildar was directed to change the Khata in the name of the legal heirs of Shivaiah and in terms of the order, the subject land was mutated in the name of respondent No.5. Subsequently, the said mutation was challenged by respondent Nos.2 and 3, which was allowed, in terms of an order dated 25.01.2024. The said order was thereafter successfully challenged in a Revision Petition filed by respondent No.5 and the Revision Petition was allowed by an order dated 31.12.2024. In terms of the said order, the name of respondent No.5 was restored in the land records. However, it was further ordered that the entries in the land records would be subject to the decision in O.S. No. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30326-DB WA No. 926 of 2025 325/2021 [O.S. No. 89/2022], which was pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Hoskote. 7. It is material to note that the said suit had been filed by the appellant, inter alia, claiming that the subject property was jointly owned by family members. In the aforesaid context, the appellant filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.2186/2025 impugning an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition filed by respondent No.5. 8. Appellant's challenge essentially rests on his claim that the records are incorrect as the subject land had devolved on all the family members. He claims that the land had been purchased from the joint family funds. However, it is not in dispute that the registered deed had been executed in favour of Shri Shivaiah and the Court held that it is obvious that the revenue entries would necessarily have to reflect the same. Since Shri Shivaiah has expired, the name of his son, respondent No.5 was entered in the revenue records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30326-DB WA No. 926 of 2025 9. The appellant's claim that the property had been acquired from joint family funds is a subject matter of dispute in O.S. No. 325/2021. In the aforesaid context, the learned Single Judge had observed at paras 9 and 10 as below: "9. If the petitioner were to succeed in O.S.No.325/2-21 and a decree of partition is granted, obviously the revenue entries would have to be mutated in accordance with the decree and so long as there is no decree in favour of the petitioner, the name of the purchaser i.e., Shivaiah, and since he is dead, his legal heirs names will have to be entered. The reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner to this effect cannot be found fault with. I find no ground to entertain this writ petition. This writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 10. It is needless to state that the entries that are made pursuant to the impugned orders will always be subject to the result of O.S.No.325/2021. It is also needless to state that any observations made by the authorities would bind the Civil Court." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30326-DB WA No. 926 of 2025 10. We find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Since the registered sale deed of the subject property is in favour of Shivaiah, the land was required to be mutated in his name and after his demise, in the name of his legal heirs. The entry made in the land record does not confer title. In the event, the appellant prevails in the suit filed for claiming title of the said property, the land records would have to be modified to reflect the same. 11. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly, dismissed. 12. The pending applications, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34